环境监管失职罪的认定与完善

发布时间：2018-01-16 13:24

本文关键词：环境监管失职罪的认定与完善　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：1997年《刑法》在第408条新增加了环境监管失职罪，与之配套的司法解释也相继出台，最高人民检察院于1999年、2001年、2005年、最高人民法院于2006年在相关司法解释中对本罪的立案或定罪条件作出了规定。2013年，最高人民检察院和最高人民法院还联合出台了《关于办理环境污染刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》，环境监管失职刑事问责体系基本建立。但即便在环境监管失职刑事问责体系基本建立的情况下，环境监管失职罪的司法适用中仍旧出现许多争议问题，一方面是司法实践中对本罪的认定，控辩双方或者司法机关内部存在较大的争议；另一方面是民众对环境监管失职人员所处刑罚过轻的不满，司法判决中普遍存在量刑畸轻的问题。这些问题折射出了环境监管刑事立法和司法解释的不足，折射出了理论上对环境监管失职罪的研究还不能适应实践的需要，因而，对本罪相关问题作出分析和研究十分必要。本文结合环境监管失职罪司法适用概况，对环境监管失职罪司法认定中的难点和争议进行探讨，通过对严重不负责任、因果关系、主体、罪过、法条竞合等相关争议问题的分析，从而为司法实践中正确认定本罪提供参考；通过对司法实践中本罪入罪少、量刑轻问题的分析，探寻其背后的立法以及司法解释的缺陷，从而为完善刑事立法和司法解释提供一些参考意见。本文具体分为以下三个部分：第一部分是环境监管失职罪概述，主要介绍了环境监管失职罪的立法沿革（包括司法解释）和本罪司法适用概况，引出了本罪司法认定的争议以及司法实践中出现的入罪少、量刑轻的问题。第二部分是环境监管失职罪的司法认定，首先论述了“严重不负责任”的争议，进而对“严重不负责任”进行了界定，对本罪失职行为与工作失误进行区分；其次论述了本罪因果关系的认定，提出仍应当用相当因果关系来界定本罪的因果关系；第三，论述了本罪主体只能是分管环境监管的领导和具体负责环境监管工作的普通工作人员；第四，论述了本罪罪过只能是过失，，并对注意义务的来源进行解读；第五，论述了本罪与玩忽职守罪法条竞合关系下，只能是特别法优先适用而不能适用重法优先；第六，论述了受贿后渎职的定性。第三部分是环境监管失职罪的完善，首先论述了司法实践中出现本罪入罪少、量刑轻的原因，引出本罪刑事立法和司法解释的缺陷；其次是对刑事立法的完善，建议将环境监管失职罪由实害犯改为危险犯，降低本罪的入罪标准；建议增设一档法定刑，对失职导致特别重大人身伤亡后果的，处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑。最后是对司法解释的完善，建议司法解释宜规定兜底条款，给法官一定的自由裁量权，以便将严重破坏环境生态功能或将来会发生重大损失情形纳入犯罪圈。
[Abstract]:In 1997, the Criminal Law added the crime of dereliction of duty of environmental supervision in Article 408, and the corresponding judicial interpretation was introduced one after another. The Supreme people's Procuratorate issued the crime of dereliction of duty in 1999, 2001, 2001. On 2006, the Supreme people's Court stipulated the conditions for filing or convicting this crime in the relevant judicial interpretation. 2013. The Supreme people's Procuratorate and the Supreme people's Court also jointly issued the interpretation of certain issues concerning the Law applicable to handling Criminal cases of Environmental pollution. The criminal accountability system of environmental supervision dereliction of duty is basically established. However, even if the criminal accountability system of environmental supervision dereliction of duty is basically established, there are still many controversial issues in the judicial application of environmental oversight dereliction of duty. On the one hand, in judicial practice, there is a great dispute between the prosecution and defense parties or the judicial organs. On the other hand, the public is dissatisfied with the light punishment imposed by the dereliction of duty of environmental supervision, and the problem of abnormally light sentencing exists in the judicial decision. These problems reflect the insufficiency of the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation of environmental supervision. It reflects that the theoretical study on the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty can not meet the needs of practice, therefore, it is necessary to make analysis and research on the related issues of this crime. This paper combines the judicial application of the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty. This paper discusses the difficulties and disputes in the judicial cognizance of environmental oversight dereliction of duty, through the analysis of serious irresponsibility, causality, subject, sin, competing of laws and so on. In order to correctly identify this crime in judicial practice to provide a reference; Through the analysis of the problem of less conviction and light sentencing in judicial practice, the defects of legislation and judicial interpretation are explored. So as to improve the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation to provide some reference. This article is specifically divided into the following three parts: The first part is an overview of the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty, mainly introduces the legislative evolution (including judicial interpretation) and the judicial application of the crime. It leads to the dispute of judicial cognizance of this crime and the problem of less conviction and light sentencing in judicial practice. The second part is the judicial cognizance of the crime of environmental supervision dereliction of duty. Firstly, it discusses the dispute of "serious irresponsibility", and then defines "serious irresponsibility", and distinguishes the negligence of duty from the mistake of work. Secondly, it discusses the cognizance of the causality of this crime, and puts forward that the causality of this crime should still be defined by the equivalent causality. Thirdly, it discusses that the subject of this crime can only be the leaders in charge of environmental supervision and the ordinary staff who are in charge of the work of environmental supervision. 4th, discusses that the crime can only be fault, and the source of the duty of care to interpret; 5th, discussed this crime and dereliction of duty law article concurrence relations, can only be the special law first applies but cannot apply the heavy law priority; 6th, discussed the nature of malfeasance after bribery. The third part is the improvement of the crime of dereliction of duty of environmental supervision. Firstly, it discusses the reasons of the crime being less in judicial practice, and leads to the defects of the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation of the crime. The second is the perfection of criminal legislation, and it is suggested that the crime of environmental supervision dereliction of duty should be changed from the crime of actual injury to the crime of danger, so as to reduce the standard of incrimination of this crime. It is suggested that an additional legal punishment should be added, if the consequences of dereliction of duty result in serious personal injury or injury, the sentence shall be imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven years. Finally, it is the perfection of judicial interpretation. The judge is given discretion to bring serious damage to the ecological function of the environment or serious loss in the future into the criminal circle.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】